Category Multi parties

How can NRM hold credible elections given the struggle about missing register and membership?


image
Are local elections being held to elect delegates afresh? How can NRM hold credible elections given the struggle about missing register and membership? Do you understand GIGO? To me unless NRM is holding fresh elections and hopefully by paid membership alone, they are not going anywhere. What does it take to hold credible elections? Is it not credible delegates? So are there credible delegates in place? If not it is GIGO.

Is it true that NRM is proposing mulolongo/queuing to elect new office bearers? Mulolongo is the perfect way to rig and intimidate delegates to stand behind the official candidate.

WBK

Advertisements

WHAT IS MBABAZI’S RANK IN THE CORP OF ARMS KNOWN AS NRA?


UNSA Marathon 2014..Hon. Amama did not send a rep. Buht rather appeared in PERSONA. Dedicated to help avail clean water to Pokot SS and Panyimur in Karamoja

UNSA Marathon 2014..Hon. Amama did not send a rep. Buht rather appeared in PERSONA. Dedicated to help avail clean water to Pokot SS and Panyimur in Karamoja


Amama Mbabazi had been a member of FRONASA, a Lieutenant in the post Iddi Amin UNLA and its Director of LEGAL SERVICES, fled to Nairobi where he remained as the leading member of the NRA external wing. Upon taking over power, no doubt he was a very powerful person whom the rank and file of the NRA could not distinguish as to whether he was a soldier on not. He too like other senior NRA officials took residence in the Kololo residential area and acquired all the armed sophistication. His first assignment was Director General of External Security (DG/ESO). He was later to hold the positions of Minister of State for Defence, Minister for Security etc. He would attend all the army council and high command meetings, chair the joint intelligence council (JIC) and coordinate the intelligence agencies.

Mbabazi commanded a lot of authority among the security circles that even the most senior army Generals could not distinguish whether he was above them or they were below him. At times Museveni would even delegate him to chair the Army Council. When formal ranks were introduced, Museveni deliberately gave him no army number and rank despite the fact that even the fallen members of FRONASA were also awarded. This is because Museveni wanted to please the senior NRA officers whom Museveni had earlier told that members of the External Wing including Mbabazi had failed to mobilise resources for the fighters.

However, going by the nature of sensitive positions that Museveni has assigned Mbabazi for the last 28 years and the political protection against alleged abuse of office, Mbabazi was made to believe that Museveni was grooming him for succession. This is why he (Mbabazi) at one time stated that Besigye was trying to jump the succession queue. IT IS WORTHY NOTING THAT AT THE TIME ERIYA KATEGAYA SEEMED TO BE THE NUMBER TWO BEFORE HE DIED OF ‘LACK OF PHYSICAL EXERCISES’!

INFO IS POWER.

POSTED BY ROBUKUI

NRM WILL END UP LIKE KANU IN KENYA AND I DOUBT MUHOOZI’S CHANCES TO BECOME PRESIDENT


I have been thinking back in time, 1979 to be specific when the late Professor Lule was removed . Then young and naïve we got into the business of distributing flyers “no Lule no work”. The minister of defense then was Mr. Yoweri Museveni (Kaguta) seems to have been added later).

It is fair to say YM then never had total control over security forces, but still unleashed terror nonetheless. The only person who almost took him and won was the late Lameck Ntambi who nearly succeeded in blowing up a trailer tanker full of gas near Nile Mansions. It would have incinerated all those in there including YM and many others. Back then perhaps due to sheer stupidity all the big shots resided in Nile Mansions.The late Mr Ntambi was working with the late Dr Lutakome Kayiira. Mr Ntambi was bolder and daring than Dr Kayiira.

So I shudder what YKM is capable of doing today. Uganda is at real cross road. The opposition has neither a Mwai Kibaki nor RAO. But NRM too does not have a Uhuru Kenyatta either. Remember in 2002, Mr. Moi picked UK who put up a spirited challenge to the NARC coalition. Therein lies the real tragedy for NRM. When YKM is done, and done he will one day, there will be no NRM.

For some reason, I doubt the brigadier Muhoozi Kainerugaba’s chances in spite of what is being said and rumoured. Many are loyal to him precisely because of YKM. Exit YKM and loyalty changes kabisa.NRM will end up like KANU.

WBK

Nanjing massacre re-done by NRM conspirators at Kyankwanzi


Look, one of them voted while sleeping. ha ha ha ha. Oh, they are two sleeping and moreover seated at the front.

Look, one of them voted while sleeping. ha ha ha ha. Oh, they are two sleeping and moreover seated at the front.


In 1937, the Imperial Japanese Army descended on the then capital of China and ended up taking the lives of about 142,000 people. No one has ever forgotten this blatant war crime.

77 years later, at Nanjing again [belonging to the Chinese too but not in China but in Uganda] a group of conspirators sat to ‘cook-up a creeping coup against the Ugandan constitution through a by-pass action at Kyankwanzi indoctrination centre.

The coup would among other things, sentence suspected pedophiles and deviant ‘behaviorists’ , and by extension political rivals, ‘opposition politicians’, to imprisonment without trial for 180 days. It would also create an apartheid state in Kampala where by, of all the Ugandan citizens of Uganda, only 3 million Kampalans shall cease to elect their own 4th-tear [district] leaders. Most important, it would sanction the installation of an Emperor via a ‘life-presidency.

These actions, Nanking-II enactments in reality, put together may lead to the death of a 15 million Ugandans, making the renown 1937 Nanjing massacre look like child-play.

And see how amazed AM is. Moses Ali seems to be saying to hell with foolish toddlers, they don't know how i was used and left on the sides eventually, let me just enjoy what can help me; sleep.The Princes of Bunyoro seems amused too.The one smiling from ear to ear is Bakabulindi.

And see how amazed AM is. Moses Ali seems to be saying to hell with foolish toddlers, they don’t know how i was used and left on the sides eventually, let me just enjoy what can help me; sleep.The Princes of Bunyoro seems amused too.The one smiling from ear to ear is Bakabulindi.


Young hecklers overthrow own party? The non-agenda item at the NRM retreat to overthrow the competent party organs and therefore confirm the “Life-Presidency” has succeeded in one major aspect: in diverting us from the real issues facing the party and state.

First, the issue was non an agenda item (agendas are prepared by the Sec. Gen; so no wonder as he was the target). at disenfranchised the party faithful and the Ugandan masses.

Second, it helped open the eyes of those who still had hopes in the big man: he’s a conspirator a la Brutus [Vs Julius Caesar] He was the architect of the whole rowdy, blackmailing exercise: proof: He never opposed the motion nor restrained the ‘mad’ youth.

Most important, the 10-day ‘imprisonment’ of 400 productive Ugandans in a backward economy is proof that the NRM top-dogs do not care about service delivery to the citizens. Millions of activities were tied up by their absence from their desk or duty areas [not only MP’s but drivers, experts, drivers, cooks, guards, scientists, etc].32 thousand ‘man-hours’ hied up to serve or offer a ‘propaganda stunt’ is no mean waste in a banana republic.

The coup [choosing candidates in a preserve of the delegates conferences, not MP’s] by the hired NRM hecklers at state expense , against their own party organs has no basis in law but is a good opener to who is leading us and pointer to where we are headed.


NRM Party MPs resolution in Kyamkwazi in Part:

“We, the undersigned members of the NRM Caucus attending a retreat at the National Leadership Institute (NALI) Kyankwanzi (6th-16th February 2014);

Do hereby resolve;

1. To support H.E Yoweri Kaguta Museveni to continue leading and facilitating our country on its take off journey to transformation.

2. To strongly appeal to and urge H.E Yoweri Kaguta Museveni to offer himself as a Presidential Candidate and NRM flag bearer in the 2016 general elections.

3. To discourage some senior leaders within the party with Presidential ambitions from pursuing schemes that compromise party cohesion, unity, breed factionalism, and instead urge them to use established party procedures in an open manner.


Christopher Muwanga

NRM YOUTH LEAGUE NOMINATE MBABAZI NRM PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE 2016 AND NRM NATIONAL PARTY CHAIRMAN 2016-2021


PRESS RELEASE ON NRM PARLIAMENTARY CAUCUS KYANKWANZI RESOLUTION AND WAYFORWARD.

18TH February 2014

The National Resistance Movement (NRM) was founded as a mass political organization and a Liberation Movement which waged a successful protracted people’s Liberation struggle that liberated Uganda from Fascist and Dictatorial Regimes and immediately after capturing state power, President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni promised a fundamental Change and promised to restore rule of law, peace, stability and the rights of the people of Uganda.

It’s true the NRM has been able to restore rule of law, justice, peace, security, stability and rights of the common people of Uganda. These are the core achievements that we as youth league of NRM we want to ensure AND that they don’t deteriorate into anarchy. In our view as youth Leaders, we all agree that the NRM was founded as a Liberation Movement and we shall at all times promote and defend the NRM and we shall not at any one time as youth of Uganda serve interests of Individuals in NRM-We are committed to our party values and we are ready to defend it against the detractors of democracy and good governance.

As you are all aware on 9th February 2014 during a Retreat of the NRM Parliamentary Caucus in Kyankwanzi, a motion was moved by the Hon Anite Evelyn youth MP Northern Uganda and it was seconded and endorsed by members of the caucus that H.E Yoweri Kaguta Museveni will be the sole Candidate for NRM Presidential Candidate 2016 AND on the following day on 10th February 2014 a One Impostor by the Name of Sewava Joseph Mukasa addressed a press conference and stated “That the NRM Youth League Support the Kyangwanzi Resolution”.

We want to take this opportunity as NRM Youth League Executive Committee on behalf of the NRM Youth League Structures from village to National level to reject the Kyankwanzi Illegal Resolution and to ask all NRM Youth and all NRM Party cadres to condemn the Kyankwanzi Position because;

· It was adopted by a wrong forum-The parliamentary caucus as no mandate under the NRM Constitution to adopt such sensitive Party issue;

· The act tantamount to practice of favoritism or nepotism by giving preferential treatment to any personal advantage as defined by Section 4 (1k) of the NRM Constitution and we demand for an explanation from the perpetrators, the sponsors, movers, seconders of the motion and all those who endorsed it and above all we hold our party Chairman accountable and responsible for presiding over such an illegal proceeding where the NRM Constitution was violated.

· The Proposal was not debated at all by the members of NRM caucus yet they had enough time to do so-We need an explanation why it was just passed without debate-This is really against our party constitution-How on earth can such resolution be adopted without debate-what was the agenda.

· The NRM Parliamentary Caucus is only a Legislative Caucus of NRM Party and is only allowed to debate on issues that will be tabled on the Floor of Parliament-That is there constitutional mandate.

· The act by the NRM caucus in Kyaknwanzi which was supported by our Party Chairman is a clear indication of the existence of Cliques in our Party and we now believe that our MPS and some party leaders violated the NRM Constitution Section 4 (1a) which prohibit members in engaging in the formation of cliques or factions OR engage in any intrigue within NRM.

· The Kyankwanzi Resolution Violated Rule 6 (A1) of the NRM code of Conduct which commit all party members and leaders at all levels to use persuasion rather than Command Language-the Caucus Resolution is a command imposed to the majority members of the NRM Party-This is un-acceptable.

· The Resolution also violated Rule 6 (A2) which Require all party members and Leaders to listen to other people’s opinion-Within the caucus no one was given an opportunity to raise a divergent view;

Because the NRM Parliamentary caucus has played a central role under the watch of our party Chairman to disunite NRM-It is within our constitutional mandate as the NRM Youth League to;

· Fight this kind of clique formation,disunity,Intrigue and propaganda detrimental to the interests of NRM and to defend its policies, aims and programmes at all times;

· We are committed to use peaceful means to isolate and work against powerful individuals who promote selfish interest and not adhering to the principle that the interests of NRM stand above everything else.

Fellow NRM Youth Leaders, cadres and the people of Uganda, we want to inform you that under the NRM Constitution Section 3 (e), It states as follows and please note this: The National Executive Council (NEC) shall recommend to the National Conference Persons competing for candidature to the positions of; National Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, Secretary General, National Treasurer, Deputy Secretary General, and the Presidential Candidate- Basing on this constitutional provision ,the NRM Parliamentary Caucus violated the NRM Constitution.

The NRM Constitution was designed to bring about internal democracy and competition for leadership in all party positions.

It is upon this background that the NRM Youth League will not accept the sole Presidential candidate of H.E YK Museveni as the NRM Flag bearer-We want leaders in NRM to compete for the position of NRM National Chairman and all positions in NRM Party structures.

Because the NRM Parliamentary Caucus un-constitutionally endorsed General Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, the NRM Youth League is not endorsing any person now but at this important point in time, we take this opportunity as NRM Youth League to NOMINATE THE RT HON JOHN PATRICK AMAMA MBABAZI for NRM National Party Chairman 2016-2021 and FOR NRM Presidential Candidate Flag Bearer for the 2016 Presidential Elections AND we are humbled to urge the Rt Hon Amama Mbabazi to accept the NRM Member’s request to contest for the forthcoming Presidential Elections as NRM Flag Bearer.

As Per the NRM Constitution, so far it is only Rt Hon Amama Mbabazi who has been nominated and as the NRM Youth League we shall OFFICIALLY bring this to the attention of the National Executive COUNCIL (NEC) for recommendation to the National Conference as per the provision of the NRM Constitution.

It is now our humble request to all the members of the National Resistance Movement who believe in promoting and safe-guarding the Vision of the National Resistance Movement to begin mobilization at your level, branch, cell, etc to ensure that The Rt Hon Amama Mbabazi take on the Leadership of the National Resistance Movement and as the NRM Presidential Flag-Bearer 2016.

I thank you,

For God and My Country,

Signed on Behalf of the NRM National Youth League by,


OMODO OMODO

CHAIRMAN

NRM YOUTH LEAGUE IN CHARGE OF NORTHERN UGANDA AND MEMBER OF NEC

TEL;+256782388976


LUZINDANA ADAM BUYINZA

CHAIRAM,NRM YOUTH LEAGUE (KAMPALA REGIO) AND NEC MEMBER

TEL:+256774992426

SERUYINDA WILLIAM

CHAIRMAN,

NRM YOUTH LEAGUE CENTRAL REGION AND NEC MEMBER

TEL;+256774529765

KIWANUKA MOSES

CHAIRMAN

NRM YOUTH LEAGUE-EASTERN REGION AND NEC MEMBER

Beti Kamya Doesn’t agree with the ruling made by Kadaga on NRM rebel MPs


As a student of the Constitution of Uganda (hereafter to be called The Constitution) and believer in organized (multiparty) as opposed to disorganised (individual merit) politics, I am provoked to respond to Prof Oloka Onyango’s opinion titled “NRM Wrong on Speaker” published in The New Vision of 8 May, 2013.

Quoting the Constitution extensively, Prof Onyango defends Speaker Kadaga’s ruling on the (no)relationship between MPs and political parties that sponsor them, once in Parliament. In my view, his powerful arguments sound like a skilled defense lawyer’s, than an academic analyzing the Constitution.

Article 1 of the Constitution says “All power belongs to the people who shall exercise their sovereignty in accordance with this Constitution”. Article 1(4) mandates the people to exercise their will on HOW they wish to be governed through referenda, hence, there is only one way in which the people can express their will on HOW they wish to be governed, i.e. through referenda.

Through the 2005 referendum, the people chose to be governed under the multiparty system, making multiparty democracy the apex principle of governance in Uganda, anything less being contemptuous of the people’s will.

In a multiparty system, people who subscribe to political parties are bound by the respective parties’ constitutions and rules, duly registered under appropriate laws. Those who do not wish to be regulated by parties do not join them, and seek election as independents. One cannot be sponsored by a party, then once in parliament, claim the benefits of independents, because you cannot eat your cake and have it.

It was in cognizant of this that Article 83(3) provides for recall of MPs by the electorate only during the Movement System where MPs get elected on individual merit, with accountability only to the electorate, so the electorate regulates them directly. It is in the same spirit that Article 83(g) requires an MP who “leaves the political party for which s(he) stood as a candidate to vacate the seat….” and seek fresh mandate because the electorate would have elected the MP knowing her / his political ideology, party manifesto and team-mates.

When the MP “leaves” her/his party, regardless of the exit method, the electorate are left with no clear knowledge of whom they are dealing with.

Article 83(g) is an entitlement of the electorate for the MP to redefine her/himself so that they know who they are dealing with. It is also a source of accountability to the electorate, who should not be taken for granted, because they know exactly whom they originally sent to Parliament. The much acclaimed “speaking for the people” by the rebel MPs is a fallacy because the people decided through the 2005 referendum that anybody wishing to speak for them must do so under the multiparty system, and under Article 255(3), “…. the results (of the referendum) shall be binding on all organs (including parliament) and agencies of the State, and on all persons (including the Speaker) and organizations in Uganda”.

Once the People speak (through referenda), their will must be reflected through laws, practices and policies that govern organs, organizations and individuals. The challenge at hand is to strengthen internal party democracy in order to derive inhouse consensus, instead of destroying multipartism when MPs fight their parties under the patronage of parliament.

I find it hard to concur with Prof Onyango (and Speaker Kadaga’s) insinuation that the Constitution of Uganda feigns ignorance of political parties’ interests in Parliament and the need to protect them or deems them irrelevant and inconsequential, in a multiparty dispensation.

Beti Kamya-Turwomwe

President

Uganda Federal Alliance

E mail: ufapresident@gmail.com

Tel: 0783 438 201

NRM RESPONSE TO THE RULING OF THE RT. HON SPEAKER OF PARLIAMENT TO RETAIN IN PARLIMANT THE FOUR (4) MPS WHO CEASED TO BE MEMBERS OF NRM


Following the Rt. Hon. Speaker’s Ruling made on 2nd May 2013, in response to the NRM Secretary General’s notification to her of the party’s decision taken on the four Members of Parliament as a result of their conduct, namely, Hon. Tinkasimire Barnabas, Hon Theodore Ssekikubo, Hon. Mohammed Nsereko and Hon Wilfred Niwagaba, Members of Parliament for Buyaga West, Lwemiyaga County, Ndorwa West and Kampala Central respectively; asking her to notify the Clerk to Parliament, that their positions had fallen vacant, and her subsequent refusal to honor the request, the NRM responds to her ruling as follows;

The NRM takes exception to the Rt. Hon. Speaker’s ruling to retain in Parliament the four MPs who ceased to be its members, and on whose ticket they were elected to Parliament.

1) The Rt. Hon Speaker’s decision was selective, convenient and ignored to read and apply the provisions of the Constitution holistically and fell short of taking cognizance of Article 1 (2) which empowers the people of Uganda to choose how they shall be governed.

2) The people of Uganda, during the 2005 Referendum adopted the Multi Party system of governance as the political framework under which Parliament operates.

3) Art. 78 of the Constitution supported by the Parliamentary Elections Act, the Administration of Parliament’s Act and the Rules of Procedure of Parliament of Uganda, provide for the sitting arrangement in Parliament based on parties, independents and special interest groups. So the decision of the speaker to retain in Parliament the four MPs, creates another group in Parliament that is legally strange.

4) In taking her decision, the Rt. Hon. Speaker should have taken consideration of the entire constitutional provisions so as to give Article 83 (1) (g) of the Constitution its rightful meaning. Having failed to do so, she limited the operation and development of parties in the Multi Party system dispensation, which the people of Uganda adopted in 2005.

5) The affected MPs having ceased to be Members of NRM, ipso facto, and as such ceased to be Members of Parliament. This is so because, there are four sides of representation in Parliament; namely, Government (NRM), the opposition, independents and for UPDF.

6) By purporting to create special accommodation for the (4) four Members of Parliament, in front of the Speaker’s desk, she effectively recognizes the fact that they ceased to belong and represent NRM in Parliament which defeats her earlier interpretation of Article 83 (1)(g) of the Constitution.

7) We contend that, it was an error of judgment for the Speaker to have purported to create another category of representation in Parliament outside those provided for in the law and this will be vigorously challenged.

8) It is also worth noting that the Speaker is the 2nd National Vice Chairperson of the NRM, member of Central Executive Committee (CEC), and having attended and actively participated in the unanimous decision regarding the status of the four named MPs in the Central Executive Committee (CEC) of NRM, it would have been prudent to disqualify herself from presiding over the same subject matter in Parliament.

9) The Speaker’s decision notwithstanding, the NRM takes the firm position that the membership of the four MPs in its ranks ceased, and their continued stay in Parliament does not only offend the clear provisions of the Constitution but also undermines the will of the People who exercised their power to decide on how to be governed.

10)The ruling of the Speaker is not only an issue of NRM as a political organization but sets a serious and dangerous precedent that undermines the spirit of Pluralism. Consequently, the NRM disagrees with her ruling, and has taken a firm decision to refer the matter to the Courts of law for adjudication.

Hon. Ruhakana Rugunda
Chairman NRM Electoral Commission*********************

M7’s speech at the opening of the NRM cacus retreat in Kyankwanzi


A FILTHY HOUSE IN PAKWACH

A FILTHY HOUSE IN PAKWACH

By 1986, when the NRM took power, Uganda’s economy was only US$ 0.246 billion in size, we were collecting only 5 billion shillings (1.4% of GDP) in taxes, the infrastructure had totally collapsed (roads, schools, health units electricity, etc.), infant mortality was 122 for every 1,000 children born alive and the average life expectancy was 43 years of age. What is the situation now? The size of the economy is now US$ 20 billion, we have done a total of 1,355 kms of new tarmac roads and repaired 1,621 kms of old tarmac roads since 1986, expanded electricity generation from 60 MW to 812 MW today, infant mortality is now 54 per 1,000 born alive children compared to 122 per 1,000 born alive in 1986, average life expectancy is now 50.4 years for both female and male compared to 43 years in 1986 and the percentage of people below the poverty line is now 24.5% compared to 56% in 1986. Therefore, the economy has expanded more than 81 times since 1986.

However, this expansion has not covered all the sectors uniformly. Apart from the Government constructed infrastructure elements of roads, power stations, schools, health units, etc., the economy, the portions driven by the private sector, has done well in the areas of: real estate (construction), services (transport such as boda bodas, buses, kamunyes, shopping malls, hair salons, petrol stations, hotels and restaurants, tour operators, etc), plantation agriculture as well as large scale farming and tourism (numbers of tourists have gone from 98,405 in 1986 to 1,151,356 today). These four sectors and services in general (real estates, services, modern agriculture and tourism) have created 872,260 jobs. You all can see that these jobs are not enough. The expansion of education and health services has also created an additional …………. Jobs. The problem with education and health, however, is that they do not create wealth (money-income) in the short run. Education and, to some extent, health create capacity which may create jobs in the medium and long term period if they are well focused and harnessed. Healthy people work better if they are motivated and properly oriented. Healthy people can, however, also waste their productive time in bars, playing pool or watching European football matches even during working hours. In that case, the people will be healthy but not productive. Similarly, you can get educated people, either in liberal studies or sciences, but who fail to get an entrepreneurial frame of mind. Nevertheless, generally speaking a healthy society which is also educated is better than an illiterate and sickly one. However, the whole society needs to be re-oriented away from laziness and parasitism to production and generating of profits in the respective enterprises.

As already pointed out above, the sectors of construction, services, tourism and plantation as well as large scale agriculture have been growing very fast. Construction at the rate of 8.9% per annum, services at the rate of 7.7% per anuum, tourism at the rate of 8.8% per annum as well as large scale agriculture and plantation agriculture at the rate of 1.8% per annum(not so fast).
Two crucial sectors have been growing also. These two sectors are: subsistence agriculture and manufacturing. Manufacturing has been growing at the rate of 7% per annum. Subsistence agriculture should not only grow but should be completely phased out, to be replaced by small scale or medium scale commercial farming. The growth of manufacturing will completely transform Uganda. I have repeatedly given you the example of milk in North Ankole (Kazo-Nyabushozi). There are now 200 milk coolers in this area, handling 2,500 litres of milk per cooler per day. These now employ 1,600 people working in the coolers and about 100 people working as Bagyemuzi ─ the people that carry milk on the bicycles from the farms to the cooling plants. These cooling plants are located at the sub-county level or at lower levels of trading centres. As I told you , there are 70 coolers in the Trading Centre of Rushere alone. Rushere trading centre is in Kenshunga sub-county. The following are the trading centres found in Kenshunga sub-county: Kiruhuura, Nyakasharara, Rushere, Nshweere, Rutoma, Kitagyi, Katongore, Mugore, Nyanga and Mirama. This is what I would like to see in the whole of Uganda. Each sub-county must be a mini-industrial centre with milk coolers, fruit processors, honey extractors, vegetable oil extractors, silk fabric processor, coffee hullers, coffee roasters, tea factories, etc. etc. All the administrative centres at the sub-county level, provided there is electricity, must be mini-industrial centres. All these will be agro-based industries.

There are, however, other industries that are based or will be based on minerals, fisheries, timber, ICT, engineering (heavy and light), scientific discoveries, etc. The scientific discoveries are based on the human brains ─ the educated and empowered brains of our scientists. They have already started. The inventions by Dr. Muranga for the bananas, Doctors Tikodri and Musasazi for the Kiira electric vehicle, Dr. Kyamuhangire, the anti-malaria-larvae discoveries, etc. are part of the limitless gold mine based on our human brains ─ far richer than the oil which some people are spending on so much time. Oil is a good catalyst, a short and medium term enabler that will help us to build our infrastructure faster. The consumption capacity of our population and the brain power of our scientists are however, in the end, a far greater wealth than the minerals or the oil and gas. Those intoxicating our society with the stories of great wealth through oil are doing us a disservice. Up to now, we have confirmed 4 billion barrels in the ground. Assuming, over the whole project time, we shall pump out of the ground 2.5 billion barrels (because you cannot pump out all the oil), at the present price of US$ 100 per barrel, Uganda will get 250 billion dollars over the whole project time. Is this the money Uganda is going to depend on for all this time? How much is South Korea (a country half the size of Uganda) or Japan earning in exports per annum? South Korea is earning US$……. billions per annum. Japan is earning US$…. billions per annum. Neither of them has oil, gas, minerals or even serious agriculture. They both, mainly, depend on the brains of their scientists.

Manufacturing has grown at the rate of 7% per annum. It will, however, grow at a much faster rate since we have solved the problem of electricity, provided we also solve the problem of the price of electricity. The problem of high electricity prices must be addressed. On account of using private companies to build electricity generation plants as we did with Bujagaali working with Aga Khan the price of electricity ends up being high. While the private companies help us to build the power houses, they use money borrowed from banks with high interest rates. When these private companies integrate these bank interest rates and their own profits into the price of electricity, the price ends up being too high to be afforded by the manufacturer, especially. The Uganda Manufacturers Association (UMA) are already complaining about these high electricity prices. One way to solve this problem is for the Government to pay off these private companies so that they stop over pricing electricity. This should be studied. The real solution is for the Government to take on the sole responsibility of building the electricity dams. That is where the money from oil would come in handy. Our manufacturers need cheap electricity to be competitive. The price of electricity to the manufacturers in China is now 7.98 American cents per unit, in the USA, it is 7.11 American cents per unit, in Germany it is 11.94 American cents per unit, in India it is 10.50 Cents per unit, in Tanzania 5 cents per unit and in Uganda it is now 11.60 Cents per unit.

The other obstacle to manufacturing has been political interference by elements of the political class. This has affected the Dairy Corporation, Lugazi Sugar Works, Amuru Sugar Works, etc. There was attempted political interference in the Palm Oil project in Kalangala but we resisted it. Kalangala is now thriving. The Caucus of NRM in Parliament must take a stand on this sabotage. Then there are delays caused by the timid political elements and the indifferent, if not compromised, civil servants. This is affecting Kilembe Mines. There are groups that appear to have the capacity to, finally, revamp and up-grade Kilembe Mines. Officials (political and administrative) have, however, been tossing them up and down for the last two years. They hide behind PPDA laws etc. First of all, PPDA laws were not for investment promotion ─ to attract investments. There were, indeed, for procurement ─ buying goods and services for Government use ─ furniture for Government offices, cars for Government ministries, etc. This is a simple process where the Government (the buyer) is comparing offers from the sellers. To confuse this with attracting people with technology, entrepreneurship and money to invest in our country is to make a very fundamental mistake. Yes, there may be different investors that may be interested in the same area of investment. Quickly compare the proposals and the capacities of the interested companies (technical, entrepreneurial and financial) and decide. All the investors would, surely, be very happy with a quick decision so that they do not have to waste money travelling to and from Uganda endlessly. If we solve the problem of political interference, high electricity prices and delays caused by disoriented political or administrative officials, the manufacturing sectors, based on agro-processing, minerals, forests, fisheries, engineering and the innovation of our scientists, the manufacturing sector will boom, at least for the internal market, the market of South Sudan, Eastern Congo, Western Kenya, North-Western Tanzania, Rwanda and Burundi.

When it comes to exports beyond the above regional circle, then we must work with Kenya and Tanzania to modernize and repair the railway lines to the Sea as well as building new ones. The cost of transporting a container by road from Mombasa to Kampala is US$ 4,500 while by rail from Mombasa to Kampala it would be US$3,100. This is with our inefficient railway system as it is at the moment. How will it be with a properly functioning railway system? What is, for instance, the cost of transporting by rail for the same container over the same distance in China, India or Brazil? The comparable figures for China, India and Brazil are ………, ……… and ….… respectively. However, even the antiquated railway of East Africa is cheaper than road transport as shown above.

In spite of the bottlenecks of electricity, political interference as well as delays by the political elements and officials, Uganda now has 416,864 companies that are formally in the services sector comprised of the areas of hospitality (tourism), consultancy, education, health, transport, ICT, beatification (salons), etc. These are employing 872,260 persons. On the manufacturing side (the formal), we have 32,410 companies, employing 153,495 persons.

To conclude this aspect, I request this meeting to resolve to work with me on the issue of the price of electricity (knowing that we shall not lag behind again on the issue of generation), political interference as well as delays by political decision makers and officials.

The other gap in the economic transformation is in the area of continuing to preserve subsistence agriculture ─ 68% of the homesteads according to the census of 2001 were in subsistence farming. Subsistence farming means just growing food for the stomach but not earning meaningful cash. I have already talked to you before on this issue. I have given you written documents. We had 18 days in Entebbe of zonal meetings last year. Just to recapitulate what we discussed then, each homestead of 4 acres should organize commercial agricultural production as follows:
1. 1 acre for coffee (Robusta or Arabica as appropriate);
2. 1 acre of fruits (oranges, mangoes, grapes or apples according to the zones);
3. 1 acre of bananas or other food crops such as rice, cassava, irish potatoes (emondi) or millet (my preferred food);
4. 1 acre of elephant grass (ebisagazi, ebibingo) for the zero grazing cattle;
5. Chicken layers for eggs, improved goats and/or pigs in the backyards of the homes;
6. Mushroom growing even in the peri-urban areas; and
7. Fish farming – especially in the areas of Busoga, Teso and Lango. Recently, I commissioned a fish hatchery in Anyara, Kaberamaido. The farmer there told me that he could get 100 million shillings from the few ponds he has there.

I cannot conclude this speech without talking briefly about infrastructure (roads, electricity, the railway, etc). In the last budget packaging, I insisted on concentrating on the electricity and the roads. With the present rains, you can see what I was talking about. Some of the areas are impassable. The Minister of Works will address you. Nevertheless, it is clear that those priorities were correct. Where they were implemented, the situation is excellent. Where they were not, people are suffering. Let us learn from those mistakes. In recent discussions with some Members of Parliament (MPs), questions were raised as to what criteria is used to pick roads for tarmacking. The main method is relying on the Internal Rate of Return (IRR). This measures the profitability of projects, including roads. Here below are the different roads in Uganda with their IRR: Nyakahita-Kazo-Kamwenge-Fort Portal 22%, Fort Portal-Bundibugyo-Lamia 18%; Kabale-Kisoro 18%; Soroti-Dokolo-Lira 15%; Kampala-Gayaza-Zirobwe 18%, Kigumba-Masindi-Hoima-Kabwoya 18.80%; Rukungiri-Kanungu-Ishasha 5.60%; Muyembe-Nakapiripirit/Moroto-Kotido 5.80%; Masindi Port-Lira-Kitgum 18.80%; Gulu-Atiak-Nimule 18.10%; Vurra-Arua-Koboko-Oraba 16.90%; Olwiyo-Gulu-Kitgum 19.6%; Kapchorwa-Suam 12.10%; Mbale-Bubulo-Lwakhakha 16.00%; Soroti-Katakwi-Moroto-Loktanyala 13.90%; Mukono-Kyetume-Katosi 23.43%; Mpigi-Maddu-Ssembabule 15.20%; Villa Maria Ssembabule 20.33%; Musita-Lumino-Busia-Wanseko 19.50%; Kabwoya-Muzizi Bridge 15.40%; Kayunga-Bbaale-Galiraya 29.50%; Buwaya-Kasanje-Mpigi-Kibibi-Mityana 26.30%; etc. etc.

With funding from International Funding Agencies or Development Partners, they never depart from this principle. The road must have an Internal Rate of Return of above 12% to qualify for international funding. It is us who, when we are able financially, or can engineer a financing solution, that depart from this principle. That is how we tarmacked Mityana-Fort Portal road, Ntungamo-Rukungiri road, Muyembe-Kapchorwa road, Kapeeka-Matugga road, Moroto-Nakapiripiriti road (on-going or about to start), Isingiro road, Ishaka-Kagamba road, etc. Here we used the need to connect the different corners of our country or for some historical reasons (Luwereo war or the 1979 war) in spite the IRR being low. Even when the IRR is very high, such as in the case of Kampala-Masaka (53%) or Kampala-Mityana (18.3%), the external agencies do not come in because they also do not have enough money. That is why the Uganda Government had to do these roads itself (Masaka-Kampala and Mityana-Kampala).

Nevertheless, we have now found solutions for the 19 roads plus Masindi Port-Lira-Kitgum and Nabumali-Butaleja-Namutumba roads in addition to what is already going on in that sector. We have given road equipment to all the districts. The challenge now is to maintain the 11,000 Kms of UNRA roads (tarmac and murram). The Minister argues that the 280 billion shillings we give him for road maintenance and repair is not enough. The other portion of his budget goes on new roads funded wholly by the Uganda Government or in partnership with Development Partners. We are going to discuss this issue in this meeting.

I thank you, congratulate you on finishing 2012 and wish you a happy and prosperous new year.

2016 IS A TICKING TIME BOMB FOR ALL MOVEMENTISTS, UNLESS ……………….”


Friends

As we continue to follow the political nightmare of our country, there are some facts I need to raise tonight that are seriously on our door and we have every right to discuss them. Being in politics as Movementists have been, does not mean that you are stupid, thus there are major serious questions being asked in Kampala among the hierarchy of the Movement that are very disturbing that I need to raise tonight. And the question mainly is this, so we have been in power this long, we have enjoyed life this long, but what is the end of this game? There are many in the movement that wonder how this thing gets closed up. Now as they are asking each other this question, there are starting points many agree on for example, Yoweri Museveni has to go that is no longer a question it is only when and how, Muhoozi Kayinerugaba has to go, that also is no longer a question, Ssabassajja Mutebi goes half hour even before Museveni and Muhoozi leave, but after all those go then what? Do we really need some guy to show up in Entebbe State House and line all of us into a firing squad let alone handing all of us over to the international court? But age is on top of us, so that is something we need to consider and very widely for it closes the door on us by every single night that falls on Kampala. So the following officers have for a while been questioning where they are heading, Peco Kutesa, Kyaligonza, Elly Tumwiine, Tumukunde, Jorum Mugume, Dr. Kiiza Besigye, Kamwesigye, Otafiire, now Tinyefunza is quite but very aware of the unsure future, Salim Saleh also aware but talks only in the night now that he is the only link between the old timers and Museveni. A man like Mugisha Muntu later learned it the hard way that he had been turned on against many of his comrades and later dumped. Baganda Generals cannot comment loudly but count Kasirye Gwanga among those pushing for a very serious discussion of how to end this Movement game. The only bold Muganda was Lt. Col Sserwanga Lwanga but as you all know how he passed on when he could have been saved medically, Sserwanga was just simply written off. But you have civilians like Rwakakoko, Ruzindana, Tumwesigye, Kweronda Ruhemba, Elly Karuhanga and many others all inclusive see a pending disaster, but simply cannot utter a word for fear of the BOSS! But the very clear understanding within the Movement is that the Movement game has to end, and if it is to end it has to end before the 2016 election. But note also that all this is amidst their confusion by Amama Mbabazi that many from within would just love to castrate.

Now as all these discussions are going on, Museveni also has another card he is throwing on the pallet. You see the push of an end of The Movement game is also being discussed within his trust worthy’s, and he is being asked to find a solution or a way to end this thing before the 2016 election, and one of the cards he has thrown on the pallet is the reconciliation stance, thus the visiting of Mama Miria and Muzeeyi Byanyima. When you look carefully at Paul Kagame’s problem, it is mainly a failure to build a bridge between Hutus and Tutsis, a failure to settle an old history. Museveni believes that if he can bridge the old enemies he might find a solution for 2016. What Museveni fails to realize is that the situation in Uganda is actually very different from Rwanda, for example Maama Miria has moved on, but Byanyima is retired and sincerely useless. But Museveni also has a problem of Mbabazi who has decided to be a Museveni’s snag on Dr Kiiza Besigye, and Mbabazi has also an issue with Muhoozi Kayinerugaba being a successor, because Mbabazi within himself, very strongly believes that he should be the next Uganda’s president, and to him there is no debate on the obvious. Now Mbabazi has worked on being a president that is granted, but the problem with his plan is that he planted his men all over the place, and if your men are all over the place you simply cannot pull a government down. Which sends The Movement camp for some reason back into the Luwero days when they were all together, for trust me if Museveni leaves office, the individuals that will hunt down Mbabazi will hunt down Tinyefunza, will hunt down Mugisha Muntonyera, but will hunt down Dr Kiiza Besigye as will hunt down Ssabassajja Mutebi, so somehow finding a solution before 2016 election can collect all of the Luwero war characters together, for they have to save themselves before the coming election, better yet before Museveni gets recalled by his maker. At this point you need to pay particular attention to COO’s articles on Museveni’s reconciliation stances, for they are a hunt of a solution to this problem by the Museveni inner circles.

But among the problems these fellows have is who exactly can replace Museveni but guarantee our safety with our families and investments within Uganda? When you raise the name of Dr Kiiza Besigye, they all stand back and we still fail to understand why but we know that Besigye has a great deal of misunderstanding with some major Movement hierarchy. This misunderstanding appears to have started from Kasese when The Movement was still being defined in terms of policies. It had an interim administration headed by Haji Kigongo, now you see he had to be a planted Muganda and on a purpose, it was the time then when Ssabassajja Mutebi was also entered into the Movement fray to solidify The Movement and the Buganda Kingdom!! The situation reached a climax when Dr Kiiza Besigye wrote the infamous latter http://ugandansatheart.org/2012/08/06/besigyes-1999-document-that-landed-him-in-hot-soup/. By the way many top NRM officers attended meetings between 1992 and 1994 at a one senior official’s residence in Nakasero in which all had agreed to do “something” about the direction of The Movement. Very surprisingly a word leaked to Museveni and when he called one by one, they all denied those meetings, thus leaving Dr. Kiiza Besigye to suck it up alone. Apparently Tinyefunza is one guy that was more than willing to get rid of Museveni then! The leader of that over throw was not even Dr Kiiza Besigye, as it was believed by the Museveni insiders. Besigye just became an innocent accidental victim when everyone else denied everything. Dr Kiiza Besigye simply became a scape Goat.

Having stated that on Dr Kiiza Besigye, morals dictates that we must mention also that as he was being prepared to be court marshaled, Dr Kiiza Besigye’ s colleagues in Bombo hid the orders from State House because he was simply denied proper discharged from the army, a tactic Museveni uses to keep his soldiers on a leash. Besigye then mistakenly went on to announce himself as a presidential material to save himself from the Kangaroo protection. Now you need to realize that at this particular time, even Tinyefunza was his great supporter to a point of being his best man, a decision Tinyefunza did at a time to show total contempt to Museveni. Now this is just to show you how Dr Kiiza Besigye accidently jumped to prominence. As critical thinkers, we have a feeling that the place the Besigye’ s used for meetings was of Kigongo’ s house. I will add as well that Njuba and Suleiman Kiggundu were very involved for it was those two that mainly and publicly stuck to Dr Kiiza Besigye. I have also to note here that Baganda must read what Dr Kashambuzi is writing very closely, for he is setting up Buganda into the very same trouble of going against the Tutsi. Dr. Kashambuzi is telling Baganda what they want to hear only that he does not tell them that the Tutsis have power and money, and rallying against them at this material time can actually prove fatal. And I will leave that point at that glitch as much as I need to expand it. Which brings us to the death of Brigadier Mayombo, you see contrally to what many state, Mayombo may have been bumped by the Rwandese {And with time I will expand on that} . And note that I am using a term “may have been” It is alleged that against Tinyefuza and Otafire’s advice, Brigadier Mayombo who had been humiliated by the Rwandan army in The DRC war, simply got pissed up with Museveni and wanted to send the country into an open war to get even with Museveni. Now to understand where I am coming from, you need to remember that he was captured with Otafire and whipped as a kid, Mayombo never forgave them for that and he swore that even if it meant throwing Museveni out of power he will go after the Rwandese army. What is interesting is that the Rwandese apparently told Museveni why Mayombo was bumped off and it for some reason shocked him. It is important to note too that it is alleged too that Muhoozi was also directly involved into the bumping of Mayombo which pushed Museveni into saying that Muhoozi will lead Uganda only after he is in a casket. It is important too to recognize that Mayombo openly despised Muhoozi whenever he drunk a lot of his favorite –Ugandan Waragi saying that Muhoozi will lead Uganda only after he is also in a casket. It will be a miracle if the commission’s findings on his death will ever be realized.

But as this end of game still worry many in Kampala, there is an issue of the armed forces. Yes we may have one UPDF but in actual fact we have three armies in one. The Veterans “That includes the Katumba Wamalas” even then they include the famous Rukungiri Generals who are treated rather differently that the rest of the veterans. It is many of those, Rukungiri Generals, who now talk loudly in private about the scare future. It is these Generals that see a carnage in Uganda’s face. But let us also remember that these Generals are not only old, useless but typically scared of their life if the government collapses like today. Or may God forbid, God decides to instruct Museveni to meet his creator. Then we have the main body UPDF, the group that should have been The Mayombo’ s group. These are just regular soldiers officers and men who are as divided as the rest of the country. Among those came the Konyi boys whom got integrated, and are really the best fighters UPDF has now for they were trained and have fought wars. But this is not a coherent force and it is very divided as the country. They don’t have the capacity to choose what is best for them for many of their officers in command are tagged by their own escorts who have a direct line to state house. And much of it is not even a coherent force and many were dispersed to different units to be closely monitored. So you have with in that force a huge section that is hunting down its own tail that it will never catch. Then you have the most sophisticated army that solely belongs to Muhoozi, it is very different, separate training structure, separate command, separate salary class, extremely well and better armed. But I must point out here that this force is surprisingly very diverse in nature, it is the only force that was built from almost every tribe in Uganda. That within its self, makes it very hard to mingle or chose sides as many are in the age group 25 to 36, the officers are all graduates very polished and intelligent and yes well paid. Of course the tribal element and favoritism cannot be ruled out, but building this force to one belief that is anti Museveni, can develop to be very cumbersome.

Which brings me to the Buganda issue, confused as the Movement is above, Mengo and Buganda has a crisis in its self that does not make the issues any easier. There is a group of Baganda in Mengo that believe that Buganda and the Kingdom is as a human being to breathing, to those it was wrong for Ssabassajja to join the Movement altogether. They believe that a natural thing can never be instructed to be. They also feared that if the Kingdom is reinstated by a politician it so can be cut out again by a politician but they had an issue of making Luwero a battle ground. So these have taken this stand from early 80’s. But on reinstating the Kingdom, they hate the closeness Ssabassajja Mutebi has to the Movement, and they so rightly argue that how can you separate the Kingdom from a corrupt government when it gets cheques from it. But Ssabassajja himself has also come out as a man that takes very strange positions, for example, although the entire history of Buganda Kingdom is Anglican, they fail to understand how it became a tool of the Catholics thus Democratic Party. To that camp, the sooner Ssabassajja leaves the kingdom the better. In fact that camp also believes that at the rate Ssabassajja has opened up the Kingdom to Museveni, it is better saved by becoming shut down altogether. Ssabassajja has responded by making sure that he makes his future assured by investing in United Kingdom very extensively, again in preparation for the departure of Museveni or the Movement altogether.

Friends the situation in our country is at a pinnacle point for every one that camped into Luwero to create the Movement wants a solution to how the game ends, and all of them including Museveni, Besigye, Ssabassajja and the likes. It is not an easy situation, neither is the solution, but time is a factor to worry about as the door of The Movement is closing by either a government falling let alone Museveni getting recalled by his dear maker. To those as Matek Gook and OJ that have been following Uganda politics closely, stay awake for this situation is only getting better by the day if not minute. Now remember too that there is a huge pressure on Paul Kagame to leave office, if Kagame goes, this entire debate is going to change and very fast, for many of the decision makers on Uganda issues are directly or indirectly affected by what happens to Paul Kagame.

EDWARD MULINDWA
TORONTO

Besigye’s 1999 document that landed him in hot soup


I have taken keen interest and participated in the political activities on the Ugandan scene since the late 1970s. This was during a period of intense jostling to topple and later succeed the Idi Amin regime. I am, therefore, fully aware of the euphoria, excitement and hope with which Ugandans received the Uganda National Liberation Front/Army (UNLF/A). Ugandans supported the UNLF’s stated approach of “politics of consensus” through the common front. It was hoped that the new approach to politics would be maintained and Uganda rebuilt from the ruins left by the Amin regime. Unfortunately, instead of nurturing the structures, and regulations which bound the front together, we witnessed a primitive power struggle that resulted in ripping the front apart to the chagrin of the population.

Some of us young people were immediately thrown into serious confusion. We had not belonged to any political party before, and we did not approve of the record and character of the existing parties – UPC and DP. Spontaneously, many people started talking of belonging to a Third Force. This force represented those persons who wished to make a fresh start at political organization, with unity and consensus politics as the center pin. With a few months left to the 1980 elections, the Third Force crystallized into a new political organization– the Uganda Patriotic Movement (UPM). The population, to a large extent, expressed their appreciation of the ideas and opportunity presented by the young organization, but was pessimistic regarding its electoral success.

Pessimism was justified, because the new organization simply had no time and resources to organize effectively nationally; and UPC was already positioning itself very loudly and arrogantly to rig the elections and seemed to have what was essential for them to do so successfully. After the sham 1980 elections, when Paulo Muwanga, a leader of UPC (and chairman of the Military Commission) took over all powers of the Electoral Commission and declared his own election results, there was widespread despondency and tension. While the “minority” DP Members of Parliament took up the opposition benches in Parliament, the rank and file of the party rapidly united behind the new forces of resistance to struggle against the dictatorial rule. The Popular Resistance Army (PRA and later, NRA) led by Yoweri Museveni which started with about 30 fighters, was overwhelmed by people seeking to join its ranks. The NRM was born as a political organization in June 1981.

It was created by a protocol that effected the merger of Uganda Freedom Fighters UFF (led by the late Prof Y.K. Lule and Museveni’s PRA). The armed wing of the organization became the National Resistance Army (NRA). The NRM political program was initially based on seven points which were later increased to become the well-known Ten-Point Program. The basic consideration in drawing up the program was that it should form the basis of a broad national political and social force. A national coalition was considered to be of critical importance in establishing peace, security, and optimally moving the country forward. The political program was, therefore, referred to as a minimum program around which different political forces in Uganda could unite for rehabilitation and recovery of the country.

To achieve unity, it was envisaged that the minimum program would be implemented by a broad-based government. After the bush war, discussions were undertaken with the various political forces to establish a broad-based government that would reflect a national consensus. The NRM set up a committee led by Eriya Kategeya (then chairman of the NRM Political and Diplomatic committee) for the purpose of engaging the various groups in these discussions. This exercise was, however, never taken to its logical conclusion. It would appear that once the leaders of the political parties were given “good” posts in the NRM government, their enthusiasm for the discussions waned, and the process eventually fizzled out. In spite of the lack of a proper modus operandi, the initial NRM government (executive branch) was impressively broad-based. Consensus politics conducted through elections based on individual merit and formation of broad-based government became the hallmark of the NRM.

Broad base undermined

However, the popular concept of the broad-based government, which had also received support of most political groups, was progressively undermined. It ought to be remembered that due to the support and cooperation of other political groups, no legal restrictions were imposed –on political parties until August 11, 1992 when the NRC made a resolution on political party activities in the interim period. In my opinion, there were three factors responsible for undermining and later destroying the NRM cardinal principle of broad-based, especially in appointment to the Executive: The NRM had set itself to serve for a period of four years as an interim government, then return power to the people. However, it was not very clear how this would happen at the end of the four years.

Some politicians in NRM government who came from other political parties set out to use their advantaged positions to, on the one hand, undermine the NRM and on the other, strengthen themselves in preparation for the post-NRM political period. Consequently, they fell out with the NRM leadership, and a number of them were arrested and charged with treason. Historical NRM politicians who thought that they were not “appropriately” placed in government, blamed this on the large number of the “non-NRM” people in high up places, and set out to campaign against the situation. They created a distinction between government leaders as “NRM”, and “broad-based”. If you were referred to as “broad-based”, it was another way of saying that you were undeserving of your post, or that you were possibly an enemy agent (“5th Columnist”).

After some years of NRM rule, some in the leadership began to feel that there was sufficient grassroots support for the NRM, such that one could “off-load” the “broad–based” elements in government at no political cost. These factors were at the center of an unprincipled power-struggle which was mostly covert and hence could not be resolved democratically. It continued to play itself out outside the formal Movement organs, with the results of weakening and eventually losing the concept of consensus politics and broad-based. By the time of the Constituent Assembly elections were held in 1994, the NRM’s all encompassing, and broad-based concept remained only in name. For instance, while the CA electoral law clearly stated that candidates would stand on “individual merit”, the NRM Secretariat set up special commercial committees at districts whose task was to recommend “NRM candidates” for support. Not only did the logistical and administrative machinery of NRM move against the candidates supporting or suspected to be favoring early return to multi-party politics, it even moved against liberal candidates advocating for the initial NRM broad–based concept.

That is why many people were surprised and confused when some senior NRM leaders declared that “we have won!” after the CA results were announced. Who had won? It was clear that there were two systems; one described in the law, and another being practiced. Moreover, the conduct of the CA, again exhibited the contradictions between the principles of NRM (and the law), and the practice. I was quite alarmed when I read a document titled ‘Minutes Of A Meeting Between H.E The President with CA Group Held On 25.8.94 At Kisozi.’ The copy had been availed to me by my colleague Lt Col Serwanga Lwanga (RIP) who attended the meeting. Present at the meeting were recorded as: H.E. the President (Chair), Eriya Kategaya, Bidandi Ssali, Steven Chebrot, Agard Didi, George Kanyeihamba. Miria Matembe, Mathias Ngobi, Mr. Sebalu, Lt Noble Mayombo, Jotham Tumwesigye, Aziz Kasujja, Beatrice Lagada, Faith Mwonda and Margaret Zziwa. The introduction of the meeting reads in part as follows: The National Political Commissar introduced this committee as a Constituent Assembly Movement Group which wants to agree on a common position.

The arbitrary hand-picked group went ahead to take positions on major areas of the draft constitution, which we members of CA, (considered as “NRM supporters”), were supposed to support in the CA. It is interesting to note that among the 16 hand-picked members of the group, only six were directly elected to represent constituencies in the CA. The others were presidential nominees and representatives of special interest groups. One member was not even a CA delegate. We strongly resisted this approach, and after intense pushing and shoving, this group was replaced by the “Movement caucus” under the chairmanship of the National Political Commissar, Kategaya.

Changing movement

The Movement caucus acted very much like an organ of a ruling party. All ministers (except Paul Ssemogerere who later resigned from government) were members. The hand-picked group, and the Movement caucus after it, both undermined the principles of the Movement and the law. The Constituent Assembly was negatively influenced by executive appointments. In the middle of the CA proceedings, a cabinet reshuffle saw Speciosa Kazibwe elevated to the vice presidency, Kintu Musoke to premier and several other delegates appointed to ministerial posts. Many others were appointed to be directors of parastatal companies. It is my opinion that after these actions, some CA delegates took positions believed to attract the favorable attention of the executive. Most CA delegates also intended to participate in the elections that would immediately follow the CA.

This had two negative effects:

Being aware of the previous role of the NRM Secretariat in elections, some CA delegates would be compromised to act in such a way as to win the support of the secretariat in the forthcoming elections. Some CA delegates saw themselves as the first beneficiaries of the government structure and arrangements that were being constitutionalized. So, they took positions which would Favour them, and not the common good. As a result, the CA progressively became polarized, and its objectivity was diminished, especially when dealing with political systems. For example, at the commencement of the CA, every delegate made an opening statement highlighting major views on the draft constitution. Analysis of these statements shows that few delegates supported the immediate introduction of multiparty system while the majority supported the continuation of the “Movement system” for a transitional period of varying length.

The positions expressed were very much in line with the views gathered by the Constitutional Commission. The commission noted in its report (paragraph 0.46) that a consensus on the issue could not be attained. This was demonstrated by the statistical analysis of views gathered from RC 1 to RC V, plus individual and group memoranda. It will be seen that nationally, at RC 1, “Movement” supporters were 63.2% and this percentage decreased progressively as they went to higher RCs until RCV (District Councils) where Movement supporters were only 38.9% and multiparty supporters were 52.8%. Among the individual memoranda, 43.9% supported a multiparty system, while 42.1% supported Movement. Among the group memoranda, 45.1% supported multiparty, while 41.4% supported Movement. It is important to note that these views were gathered at a time when there was no impending election, and therefore, no campaigning.

Accordingly, the Constitutional Commission proposed the following, as the only limitation on political party activities (in Article 98 of Draft Constitution): “For the period when the Movement is in existence, political parties shall not endorse, sponsor, offer platform to or in any way campaign for or against any candidate for public office.” The CA under the influences outlined earlier ended up with restrictions contained in the highly contentious article 269 of the Constitution. The character of the Movement gradually changed, and the process of change was not determined democratically. Instead, it was continuously manipulated. Established Movement organs were continuously undetermined, and others completely ignored. For example, the National Executive Committee (NEC) of NRM was the organ supposed to be coordinating change in the NRM, yet NEC had not met for more than three years prior to the promulgation of the 1995 constitution – in spite of a requirement for it to meet at last once every three months. Instead, covert and arbitrarily constituted groups came in, like district election committees, special CA groups, Movement political High Command, Movement caucus, Maj Kakooza Mutale’s group, etc. The Movement created by the CA and completed by Parliament (through the Movement Act 1997) was different from the one of 1986-1995.

The Movement Act 1997 created a political organization with structures outside the governmental structure. For the first time, the Movement was a political organization distinct from government, the only remaining link being that it was funded by the government. Unfortunately, instead of describing the Movement as a political organization, the CA chose to call it a political system – distinct from “Multiparty Political System”, and other systems that may be thought of later. This was, in my opinion, a grave error. We even ignored advice given to us through a letter by President Yoweri Museveni (chairman NRM and Commander in Chief NRA) to the CA-NRM caucus delegates, dated June 21, 1995. In the letter, the chairman says, “the NRM is not a state but a political organization that tries to welcome all Ugandans. It therefore cannot coerce all Ugandans to be loyal to it. Loyalty to NRM is voluntary.”

The reality of the Movement today is that it is a political organization in much the same way as any political party is. Having no membership cards does not make it less so. In fact, in the letter referred to above, President Museveni further explains: “then some people may ask the question. If NRM could be already to compete for political office with opposing political forces in future, why not do it now? Do not support doing it now because it is not in the best [interest] of governance and fortunately now the people still agree with us. It is only when the majority of the people change that we have to adjust our position. It would be something imposed on us by circumstances.” So the NRM/Movement system is a convenient and, for the time, popular means to political power.

Manipulation

The characteristics which made the NRM government popular, such as the broad- based strategy, principle of individual merit, and the 10-Point Program have been seriously eroded. This is evidenced by the bitter antagonism and animosity which exists between Movement supporters in many parts of the country, e.g. Kabale, Ntungamo, Kasese and Iganga. After more than 13 years of NRM rule, armed rebellion rages on in northern Uganda, and has also become entrenched in the western part of the country. All in all, when I reflect on the Movement philosophy and governance, I can conclude that the Movement has been manipulated by those seeking to gain or retain political power, in the same way that political parties in Uganda were manipulated. Evidently, the results of this manipulation are also the same, to wit: Factionalism, loss of faith in the system, corruption, insecurity and abuse of human rights, economic distortions and eventually decline. So, whether it’s political parties or Movement, the real problem is dishonest, opportunistic and undemocratic leadership operating in a weak institutional framework and a weak civil society which cannot control them.

I have shown that over the years the “Movement System” has been defined in the law in a certain way, but the leaders have chosen to act in a difficult way. This is dishonest and opportunistic leadership. I have also shown how changes have been made to the Movement agenda, and other important decisions have been made outside the Movement structures. This too is undemocratic leadership. In my opinion, the way forward in developing a stable political situation is to do the following: Urgently revisit the legal framework with a view to making an equitable law and regulation for all political organizations. The Movement should be treated as a political organization. Implementing this would need amendments to the Constitution, including amendment of articles 69 and 74. This requires the approval of the people through a referendum and the forthcoming referendum could be used for this purpose. In any case, laws are a reflection of the political will, so if there is political will to correct a situation, finding a way is easy.

The primary guarantor of democracy, human rights and the rule of law must be the civil society. Its capacity should, therefore, be quickly developed. Focus on a program that could quickly raise the standards of living of our people to a decent level. This is an essential antecedent for our society to build a viable democracy. Of course, the approach to raising the standards of living is highly debatable. I have personal views that I hope to share with the public at another time. I pray to the almighty God to guide us so that we do not tumble again.

KIZZA BESIGYE

%d bloggers like this: